KOMAL MOHITE Vs. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

(2.) The facts as averred by the petitioner in the writ petition are, on February 09, 2016 a poetry reading event was organized. The poster said "A Country Without a Post Office". As per Statute 32(2), the University has a proctorial system where administration of students related matters pertaining to acts of indiscipline are delegated to the Chief Proctor. He/she is assisted by two additional proctors; one of the proctors is a woman. On February 11, 2016, a proctorial inquiry was set up and an appeal was made to all concerned, especially students to submit all audio/video evidences regarding the incident by February 26, 2016. On February 11, 2016, the Vice Chancellor set up a High Level Enquiry Committee superseding the Proctorial Enquiry Committee. The HLEC was given the deadline of February 22, 2016 for submitting the report. The HLEC submitted a preliminary report, which was accepted by the Vice Chancellor and the Chief Proctor was asked to implement the recommendations. On February 16, 2016, HLEC sent a letter directing the petitioner to appear before the HLEC on February 18, 2016. On February 18, 2016, the HLEC sent second notice to the petitioner directing her to appear before the HLEC on February 19, 2016. On February 19, 2016, the HLEC sent third notice to the petitioner directing her to appear before the HLEC on February 26, 2016. On February 23, 2016 the Vice Chancellor had approved appointment of two more Members in HLEC. On March 11, 2016, the HLEC submitted its report. On March 15, 2016, a show cause notice was issued to the students wherein they were directed to file reply by 4 pm on March 16, 2016. Deadline to file reply was increased by few days till March 18, 2016. On March 18, 2016, reply was filed by the students, wherein they had sought that the copy of the complaint, details of the witnesses and their depositions, list of documents, proof/evidence/findings, if any relied on and all documents, statements, and material, if any, relied upon by, during the course of the enquiry, be provided, in order to enable them to file a detailed written response. Thereafter, sufficient time may be granted to make an effective response to the findings. On April 25, 2016, the Chief Proctor after obtaining the approval of the Vice Chancellor issued order holding the petitioner guilty under Clause 3, of category-II sub- category (xxv), whereby the VC imposed a fine of Rs.20,000/- on the petitioner. A writ petition is filed by the petitioner being W.P.(C) No. 4394/2016 wherein this Court passed an order holding that the office order dated April 25, 2016 shall not be given effect to until the appeal filed by the petitioner is decided. On August 22, 2016, order is passed in the appeal upholding the fine of Rs.20,000/- that has been imposed by HLEC on the petitioner. SUBMISSION:-

(3.) It is the submission of Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, post the events of February 09, 2016, the Respondent set up a 'proctorial enquiry' to enquire into the allegedly seditious slogans raised during this event. However, this enquiry was superseded by the Vice Chancellor, who set up a "High Level Enquiry Committee". The students identified by the HLEC sent a representation to the Committee, challenging its constitution and also requested that the findings, charges, and the purported evidence be shared with them. The HLEC failed to respond to any of these requests. As per the HLEC recommendations, the Petitioner was found guilty of "lending her name in the poster titled "Against the Brahmical collective conscience! Against the judicial killing of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt..." in the name of cultural evening thus arousing communal and caste feelings." In addition to this the VC withdrew the hostel facility of the Petitioner till July 21 st 2016 and also imposed a fine of Rs.20,000/-, upon the Petitioner. In order to protest the unfair manner in which the Petitioner, among other students, was punished by the Respondent, some students of the University went on an indefinite hunger strike, followed by a mass hunger strike by some teachers of the University. The Petitioner subsequently, approached this Court for quashing the aforementioned office order. This Court held that the Office Order will not be given effect until disposal of the appeal filed by the Petitioner before the Vice Chancellor. The decision of the Chief Proctor was upheld and the Petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- as fine and hostel facilities were withdrawn from her for a period of two semesters for violation of disciplinary rules by the Appellate Authority. The Petitioner has been subjected to an enquiry which has violated the principles of natural justice, even though any administrative inquiry devoid of the adherence to these principles does not stand. Reference is made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in AK Kraipak v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150 and State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors . AIR 1967 SC 1269.